Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. You can read Dan's recent work here

Why isn't Britain supporting US air strikes against Isil?

A pair of RAF Tornados at a base in Scotland. At least six of the aircraft are taking part in reconnaissance missions in Syria. (Photo: PA)

Why isn’t the RAF bombing Isil? I don’t mean “why aren’t they” in the sense of “they should be” – though they should. But genuinely, why is the British government so reluctant to say “Yes, we will assist the Iraqi government and our American allies by targeting Isil militarily from the air”?

Six days ago the Telegraph reported “officials in the US believe that 'Britain and Australia would be willing to join the United States in an air campaign'”. Two days ago the Guardian reported that ministers were “weighing” joining air strikes. Monday afternoon’s statement by the Prime Minister was widely interpreted as “raising the prospect” the of air strikes.

But for some reason we are continuing to hold back. And I don’t understand why.

It can’t be operational. We have the capability to conduct combat missions over Iraq. We have already deployed between six and eight Tornadoes to conduct reconnaissance over the country, and then can easily be reconfigured for a ground attack role.

Downing Street has said that no request has been received from the United States or the Iraqi authorities for assistance in joining in attacks on Isil. But that seems to conflict with what the Australian PM Tony Abbott has just told the Australian parliament. Australia had received a “general request” surrounding a potential military role in Iraq and is “considering what we may be able to make available”, he said.

Downing Street officials are also emphasising the limited and targeted nature of current US operations against Isil. “This is not some sort of shock-and-awe campaign,” one told me. But despite that, surely that doesn’t preclude an in-principle statement that Britain is prepared to join air strikes if they are required.

British officials are also emphasising, for understandable reasons, the importance of the Iraqi government itself taking the lead in combating the Isil threat. But in a sense, that Rubicon has already been crossed with the decision to deploy US military forces. And it is difficult to see the broader diplomatic benefits of the US being seen to be acting in isolation.

Maybe the problem is political. Perhaps Minister’s feel there is simply no public appetite for further direct British military intervention. “Iraq’s still casting a long shadow,” one source admitted. That is supported by a recent ComRes poll which found 50 per cent of respondents opposed air strikes, while 35 per cent supported.

A connected factor is the attitude of the opposition. Labour has been unclear on whether, and in what circumstances, it would back British air strikes. And after the Syria vote David Cameron basically no longer trusts Ed Miliband over international security issues. That said, the balance of opinion within the Labour Party has shifted in support of limited British military action. And if Miliband were to oppose air strikes he would face major opposition within his shadow cabinet, including the possibility of resignations.

Officials also point to the things that Britain is doing in relation to the crisis – reconnaissance, humanitarian support, arming of the Kurdish peshmerga. “We can’t just start bombing people because a few commentators call for it,” one government insider said bluntly.

Which is true. But the threat from Isil is not the creation of newspaper columnists. Last week the Prime Minister said Isil poses a “greater and deeper threat to our security than we've seen before”. Which is why we should be confronting that threat directly and militarily. And it’s still not clear why we aren’t.